[POCSO Act] Kerala HC Upholds Conviction Of Father Accused Of Sexually Assaulting 9-Yr-Old Daughter, Says Life-Sentence Imposed By Trial Court Not Disproportionate
The Kerala High Court in a recent POCSO matter rejected the appeal of an accused who was convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his nine-year-old daughter. The Court also rejected the argument of the accused that the sentence imposed of 5 years under the POCSO Act, and 1 year under the IPC, was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. A division bench of...
The Kerala High Court in a recent POCSO matter rejected the appeal of an accused who was convicted for committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his nine-year-old daughter.
The Court also rejected the argument of the accused that the sentence imposed of 5 years under the POCSO Act, and 1 year under the IPC, was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.
A division bench of Justices PB Suresh Kumar and Johnson John reasoned that the punishment imposed was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence as the accused was the biological father of the 9-year-old victim.
“Having regard to the fact that the accused is none other than the biological father of the victim girl who was only aged 9 years at the relevant time, we do not think that the punishment imposed on the accused is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence” observed the bench.
The petitioner was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 9(n) read with Section 10 (aggravated sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC, for threatening his daughter that she would be killed if she revealed the assault to others.
The special court convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no evidence to prove the alleged act except the evidence provided by the victim and that it could not be the sole reason to convict the petitioner.
The court looked into the evidence tendered by both the mother of the victim and the victim herself and stated that “nothing was brought out to doubt the veracity of the evidence tendered by her”.
The bench also rejected the argument that the evidence was not tendered by a sterling witness, stating that "on an evaluation of the materials on record, we are of the view that the evidence tendered by the victim in the case satisfies the requirement of a sterling witness and therefore, the finding rendered by the Special Court that the evidence tendered by the victim is reliable and trustworthy, is only to be affirmed".
Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate K Jagdeesh
Counsel for Respondent: Advocate Ambika Devi, Public Prosecutor
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
Case Title: Stephen v. State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL A No. 138 of 2017